Disposed¶8

Jsw Steel Limited v. R. K. Mishra

Contempt – disobedience of Court orders – delivery of scrips

Bombay HC6 Aug 2025CONPW/50/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Contempt Petition No.50 of 2025 in Writ Petition No.3710 of 2023 with Show Cause Notice (Writ Petition) No.9 of 2024; JSW Steel Limited v. R. K. Mishra; coram M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.; decided 6 August 2025; discharge of contempt notices; handing over of scrips/shares; full and final settlement; no intention to disobey court orders; contempt proceedings closed; petitions disposed; Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh; senior advocates Rafique Dada and Prakash Shah for petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Contempt notices discharged; contempt proceedings closed; both contempt petitions disposed of, with the petitioner accepting the handed-over scrips in full and final settlement without pressing the balance amounts. ¶8

Jsw Steel Limited vs R. K. Mishra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents were guilty of disobedience/contempt of the orders of this Court such that the contempt notices issued to them ought to be pursued.

¶2

Court's answer

The Court accepted the Additional Solicitor General's statement, made on instructions, that the respondents never had any intention of disobeying the orders of the Court.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Since the scrips had been offered and accepted, the Court did not consider it appropriate to pursue the contempt petitions any further.

¶6

Key takeaways

The Court discharged the contempt notices, closed the contempt proceedings and disposed of both contempt petitions.ratio¶8
Issuance of the contempt notices rested on a prima facie opinion formed by the Court and was not intended to reflect any final opinion on the conduct of any of the respondents.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt – disobedience of Court orders – delivery of scrips – resolution during pendency. Contempt notices had been issued to the respondent in Contempt Petition No.50 of 2025 in Writ Petition No.3710 of 2023 (with Show Cause Notice (Writ Petition) No.9 of 2024). On the Court urging resolution, the parties settled the matter: the respondents handed over balance scrips valued at Rs.57,91,20,768/- (Contempt Petition No.50 of 2025) and scrips valued at Rs.23,70,76,457/- (Contempt Petition (L) No.23888 of 2024), against the petitioner's claims of Rs.57,95,92,973/- and Rs.23,81,48,625/-. Counsel for JSW Steel Limited acknowledged receipt and, leaving aside balances of Rs.4.72 lakhs and Rs.10.72 lakhs, accepted the scrips in full and final settlement. The Division Bench (M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.) accepted the ASG's statement that the respondents never intended to disobey the Court's orders, discharged the contempt notices, closed the proceedings and disposed of both petitions, clarifying that issuance of the notices reflected only a prima facie opinion and no final view on the respondents' conduct.

¶1

902-CONPW-50-25.DOCX

¶2

rsk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.50 OF 2025 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3710 OF 2023 WITH

¶6

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE (WRIT PETITION) NO.9 OF 2024

¶7

JSW Steel Limited … Petitioner Versus R. K. Mishra … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Rafique Dada, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate, Mr. Jas Sanghavi and Mr. Vikas Poojary i/b PDS Legal , for Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Anil Singh, ASG a/w. Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Mr. Rupesh Dubey and Mr. Vikas K. Salgia, for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 6 August 2025

¶12

PC:-

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

In these contempt petitions, notices for contempt were issued to the respondents. After the matter was argued for some time, this Court felt that this was a matter which could be sorted out by the parties. Accordingly, the parties were urged to sit and explore the possibility of a resolution instead of precipitating the issues in these contempt petitions.

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

902-CONPW-50-25.DOCX

¶17

Now we are happy to record that the parties have, to a great extent, sorted out the matter based on documents on record.

¶18

Mr. Singh, the Additional Solicitor General of India submits that the respondents had no intention of disobeying the orders of this Court. He submits that today, in Contempt Petition No.50 of 2025 the respondents handed over balance scrips valued at Rs.57,91,20,768/- and in the second Contempt Petition (L) No.23888 of 2024, the respondents had handed over scrips valued at Rs.23,70,76,457/-. He pointed out that this was against the petitioner’s claim of Rs.57,95,92,973/- and Rs.23,81,48,625/-

¶19

Mr. Rafique Dada, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both contempt petitions acknowledges receipt of scrips. He states that although there is balance of Rs.4.72 lakhs and Rs.10.72 lakhs, he has instructions not to press these contempt petitions and accept these scrips in full and final settlement of the controversies which are the subject matter of these petitions.

¶20

Now that the above scrips are already been offered and accepted, we do not think that we should pursue these contempt petitions any further.

¶21

We accept Mr. Singh’s statement made on instructions that respondents never had any intention of disobeying the orders of the Court.

¶22

Accordingly, we discharge Contempt Notices, close these contempt proceedings and dispose of both these petitions.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

902-CONPW-50-25.DOCX

¶25

Notices were issued based on a prima facie opinion that we had formed and issuance of such notices was not intended to reflect any final opinion on the conduct of any of the respondents.

¶26

In any event, now these notices are discharged and contempt petitions are also disposed of.

¶27

(Jitendra Jain, J)

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Jsw Steel Limited v. R. K. Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jsw Steel Limited v. R. K. Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Exxon Mobile Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. vs the Joint Commissioner, Cgst and Central Excise

Heena Metal Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

Heena Metal Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

M/S. Perfect Way Trading through Its Prop. Anil Mehta vs the Union of India through the Secretary Ministray of Law and Justice Department of Legal Affairs

Piyush Tarawat vs Union of India through Its Secretary Department of Legal Heir Affairs Branch Secretariat and Ors.

Liberty Oil Mills Limited vs Joint Commisioner (Appeals Thane) GST and Central Excise and Ors.